forgottenrealmsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Arcane (race)
For the record, the Arcane were remade as the Mercane for 3.0 edition in the Epic Level Handbook pages 204–205 and Manual of the Planes 3rd edition pages 179–180. However, they become planar merchants with five extra-jointed fingers rather than six fingers. There's no Realms connection I can see, however. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:17, April 12, 2018 (UTC) : Yes, I remember running across the Mercane and thought, "Huh, so they are basically planar Arcane," but I never read that closely, and I guess I never thought of them as remade, but now that you mention it, it's rather obvious, isn't it…? I'll have to check if they are in any Planescape material, but I doubt it. ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:27, April 12, 2018 (UTC) ::That's very interesting. Now that User:Saya222 has found a connection between mercanes and the Realms, should we rule that arcane and mercanes are one and the same and adopt the policy of the latest edition name being the official one? They still seem a little different (planar arcane, indeed), so I for one would vote to regard them as distinct entities until some more unambiguous identification is found. However, I guess a case could be made either way. It could be that the arcane never were mentioned as extraplanar entities because that was too early in the game, for example, and their name got changed so it would not create confusion; but it could as well have been on purpose (since extraplanar creatures already existed even before Planescape came along). — Sirwhiteout (talk) 11:49, April 12, 2018 (UTC) :::I'd always just heard from other fans that the arcane were renamed to mercane, presumably because spelljamming wasn't covered in 3.x editions and the name "arcane" is just confusing. :) Several other sites have assumed this, like Planewalker and Dungeons & Dragons Wiki. I don't know if there's been an official statement however. :::The arcane and mercane seem similar enough that merging and renaming seems appropriate. However, if you, as resident expert on arcane, feel they are too different or it would be too complicated to merge them, that's also fair, and we could leave them separate, with notes and See Also links between them. Like the various shadar-kai and kenku races, etc., there's precedent for splitting similar but different updated races. — BadCatMan (talk) 12:17, April 12, 2018 (UTC) ::::My vote is leave them as separate for now. They could be different subraces, for example, for all we know. Fan sites often get a lot of things wrong. (Consider the issue with noble eladrin that I unraveled a while ago.) We seem to be one of the only places that actually cares about defending our statements with sources. Especially since the new Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes is coming out, I think we should at least wait and see if mercane and/or arcane make it into 5e. ~ Lhynard (talk) 13:15, April 12, 2018 (UTC) :::Monstrous Compendium Planescape Appendix II has planar merchants called arcane, further strengthening the connection to the 3rd edition mercane. In addition, the sixth finger is a misunderstanding: The text, as well as later artwork, gives the arcane five fingers but one extra joint, just as the mercane have. (By the way, do you count two or three joints in a human as finger joints?) Only the original image from the Lorebook of the Void shows six fingers. So I guess the artist simply got this wrong. Daranios (talk) 19:54, April 12, 2018 (UTC) :::: Ok, I'll change my vote. The 3e mercanes are a bit different from the Spelljammer arcane, but are pretty much identical to the Planescape arcane. I think it is safe to merge them now. Alternatively, we could wait until Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes comes out to see if there is any 5e update, but considering the coverage on what might be in there, I wouldn't keep my hopes up… — Sirwhiteout (talk) 21:00, April 12, 2018 (UTC) :::: Good find, and good catch on the fingers. I hate it when artists get the art wrong. :( I, too, change my vote. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the Spelljammer novels give them six fingers, but I'll look that up when I get home. ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:13, April 13, 2018 (UTC) ::::Oh definitely, the planar arcane and the mercane are nigh identical. I also vote for a merge (at least if anyone's going to work up the mercane). Presumably spelljamming arcane/mercane operate slightly differently from planar arcane/mercane, but that's to be expected. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:55, April 13, 2018 (UTC) :::: I remembered correctly: at least two of the Cloakmaster Cycle novels explicitly state that they have six fingers. :::: I've expanded the article with both information from the novels and the 3e sourcebooks. :::: Great teamwork, all! :::: ~ Lhynard (talk) 03:22, April 13, 2018 (UTC) ''A''rcane or a''rcane? I would like to raise a minor issue: Should the name be spellt Arcane or arcane? I have seen that ''Rock of Bral has "Arcane", as has Realmspace on p. 47, but already on p. 58 again "an arcane". Spelljammer: AD&D Adventures in Space, Monstrous Manual, Monstrous Compendium Planescape Appendix II and Volo's Guide to the North all use "arcane". How is it in the Cloakmaster novels? I think "arcane" is first and foremost a race designation and thus should not be capitalized. Also, if we follow the red tape here I guess Volo's Guide should take precedence as the one specifically Realms source. In the end the spelling in Realmspace might either be sloppyness, or an in-universe explanation might be you write "the Arcane" when thinking of them as a (race-wide) organisation, and "an arcane" when thinking of the race. Daranios (talk) 07:39, May 1, 2018 (UTC) : There is inconsistency all over the place, but Volo's Guide is not the only Realms source. Netheril: Empire of Magic, "Winds of Netheril", p. 9 also has "the Arcane". The Cloakmaster Cycle does not capitalize it. :Yes, as you suggest, I think there may be a slight trend toward using "the Arcane" as the designation for the race as a group and "an arcane" for an individual of the race. That's what I have always done, but not every book follows this. : Whatever we decide, we simply need to say in the article, "also written as…". : ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:43, May 3, 2018 (UTC)